That's a fascinating thought experiment, isn’t it? A single edit can make an entire narrative feel honest or deceptive. If a film or a news story cuts out a crucial scene, you’re left with a version of reality that only the editor approved. Ethically, we’re looking at responsibility: the creator has the power to shape perception, so should they always present a full context? Or can a focused cut serve the truth by removing noise? Think of it like a conversation. If I skip the part where someone explains their mistake, I might paint them as reckless when they were just confused. But if I show that part, the audience might feel they deserved better treatment. So the cut’s ethics depend on intent, transparency, and impact. The real question is: do we have a duty to show the unedited truth, or is a curated narrative sometimes a more honest reflection of reality’s messy layers? What do you think—does editing give us power or privilege?

Exactly, it’s that fine line between sculpting a story and carving away the truth. If you’re honest about why you’re cutting, you give the audience a clearer picture, even if it’s only a part of the whole. It’s the responsibility of the editor to make that choice consciously, not to manipulate for personal gain. The power lies in transparency, not in the ability to silence.